Why are AMD CPUs much cheaper than Intel?

Mustachio von Fritolay · Sep 9, 2014

Hey guys.

I'm VERY close to being done with school, and the very first thing I'm doing with my first few paychecks is to build a kick-ass PC. My baby right now has an intel i5 3700k sandy bridge because people had recommended it to me - I never really looked at AMD alternatives when I built it because of how much people told me about the sandy bridge. However, browsing through newegg right now is showing me AMD CPUs that are, on paper, more powerful than their Intel alternatives but for much cheaper.

This does not sit right with me. So, I would like to ask: what's the catch? Why are AMD CPUs much cheaper than Intel? Is it that the quality/longevity is worse? Or is it that Intel charges for the brand a la Apple?

I love my i5, it's a beast and very reliable, but I also dig my 6870 which still tackles the heavy hitters. I really have no reason to point fingers at either of these companies.

logainofhades · Sep 9, 2014

AMD is not more powerful than Intel, unless we are talking power consumption. Intel is faster, clock for clock, and better performance per core. Honestly, your CPU is still pretty good. I would probably only upgrade your GPU at this point. I think you meant ivy i5 3570k. There is no such thing as an i5 3700k sandy bridge. :lol:

RobCrezz · Sep 9, 2014

Because they aren't more powerful.

They are cheaper because they need to be to compete. Intel is running a much newer, smaller and faster architecture. (basically Intel gives you more performance at lower clock speed[ghz], with less cores)

However, their GPUs are much better and competitive.

PS. There isnt a AMD CPU on the market you should change from your i5 for.

cemerian · Sep 9, 2014

amd cpu's are in no way more powerfull than intel, besides no amd chip could offer better performance then you i5 3570k(unless you oc the fx8xxx series past 5ghz, even then intel will be ahead in clock per clock , simply put amd cpu's are low budget offerings, from which the fx 8xxx series is pretty good for a budget encoding, streaming, editing rig(only places where these chips are competing), but in gaming your current cpu matches the best amd can offer you

DribbleJerp · Sep 9, 2014

If you plan on maxing out performance and graphics on games get either an i7 or AMD FX-8320 or 8350. yeah yeah people dont believe me but look on steam. to play the newest and best games they recommend either an i7 or AMD FX-8320 or 8350. not some little i5 lol

DubbleClick · Sep 9, 2014

DribbleJerp :

It's probably against the forum rules, but I can't tell you how retarded your comment is.

The "little i5" is like a ferrari compared to a 8350 being a ford.

bmacsys · Sep 9, 2014

I am getting the feeling this is a less than truthful topic. i5 3700k?

logainofhades · Sep 10, 2014

DubbleClick :

DribbleJerp :

It's probably against the forum rules, but I can't tell you how retarded your comment is.

The "little i5" is like a ferrari compared to a 8350 being a Chevy.

Fixed!

stoopiedas · Sep 10, 2014

Mustachio von Fritolay :

Okay Amd advertises with high clock speeds and lots of cores. Honetly, after owning BOTH an FX8350 and an intel I7 4770K. Intel maybe a ton more money but they do kick AMDs butt with better supported motherboards faster benchmarks and less power consumption (helps with cooling)

Use cpu benchmark.com to figure out the true speed with one number.

AMD so called 8 core
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core
Intel I7 4770K which has the same number of cores
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4770K+%40+3.50GHz

I am unbiased with experience with both. amd works just make sure you buy a good well rated board for it with great amd drivers. If you have the money get INTEL!!!! check the benchmarks on the ones you are looking at

(The price difference is due to intel using better technology then amd but amd makes up for the gap by shoot 3 to 4 times the power into an outdated processor and cranking up the clock speeds)

Mustachio von Fritolay · Sep 11, 2014

bmacsys :

As logainofhades said, I meant 3570k. I'm not exactly an enthusiast PC builder.

oxiide · Sep 11, 2014

Mustachio von Fritolay :

Intel has a reputation of being "expensive," but if you bear in mind performance, Intel's lineup basically matches up to AMD's where they should. AMD really has nothing that catches up to even a $250 Core i5 in anything but the most favorable of applications and/or GPU-limited games, and so it follows that they charge less. Additionally, let's not forget the absurd launch prices of the FX-8150 or FX-9590.

RaidHobbit · Sep 20, 2014

Mustachio von Fritolay :

In the low-spec market an AMD CPU is the best. This is the i3/FX-4350 level.
In the mid-spec market Intel is best but AMD has more lifespan. This is the i5/FX-8350 level.
In the high-spec market there is only Intel. This is the i7 level.

Most games work fine with a FX-4350 (4-cores) or a FX-6350 (6-cores) when playing on one monitor in normal HD resolutions. In cpu intensive games or more elaborate graphic setups you'll notice the slowdown. My advice is avoid the low-spec level unless on a tight budget. If you are on a tight budget then the AMD is better value for your money compared with an i3.

Calculatron · Sep 20, 2014

There are several reasons why AMD CPUs are less expensive. The first is probably because the FX-line does not come with any sort of integrated graphics, where as the Intel Core-series does. There are other integrated features that also drive up the price of the CPU, like, with Haswell, having the VRM on the CPU, and also certain decoders.

In addition to this, the current FX-series from AMD is also built with shared resources in mind. The top-of-the-line 8-core CPU is actually four modules of two cores each, sharing some cache and a decoder. This is why a lot of people were really anxious for a Steamroller-based FX chip to roll out - each core was to get it's own decoder. Steamroller did see a good jump in IPC performance, but since AMD switched to a different lithography, one that does not promote as-high frequencies, the current Steamroller APUs are a bit lackluster, since they perform just as well as Trinity/Richland chips at stock frequencies.

TheMagicalWallaby · Sep 20, 2014

DribbleJerp :

I would do some more research on AMD and Intel CPU's if I were you.

RaidHobbit · Sep 21, 2014

TheMagicalWallaby :

He needs too. i7 is not for gaming unless someone has 3 gpus and 3 monitors on the go. For what 99% of people call gaming an i5 is more than enough. Heck, an AMD is fine for many of them.

marionezi · Sep 21, 2014

RaidHobbit :

TheMagicalWallaby :

He needs too. i7 is not for gaming unless someone has 3 gpus and 3 monitors on the go. For what 99% of people call gaming an i5 is more than enough. Heck, an AMD is fine for many of them.

The best answer for now!

compkidd · Sep 22, 2014

Amd CPUs simply have a lot less performance, heat up more and use more electricity than Intel CPUs.

Why are AMD CPUs much cheaper than Intel?

Reputable

Titan

Expert

Honorable

Reputable

Admirable

Honorable

Titan

Distinguished

Reputable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Honorable

Dignified

Distinguished

Honorable

Reputable

Share this page